Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
are also on the $5 bill, the economic case for a penniless u.s. grows more compelling, giving ex-congre ex-congressman kolbe hope. >> when people find out about the savings they'll make it's substantial and they're willing to make this change. >> according to the congressman, not minting pennies would save the u.s. treasury about $45 million a year. and while we're on the subject, switch prg the paper dollar to a dollar coin would save $178 a year and a nickel now costs a dime to produce. quarter for your thoughts? thanks for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley in washington. head to cnn.com/sotu for analysis and extras. yo if you hissed any part of today's show, find us on itunes. search "state of the union." "fareed zakaria: gps" is next. >>> this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a great show for you today and we begin with american politics. what is really happening? are the republicans on the defensive? will the automatic budget cuts happen? is there any chance of legislative de
point to a different reality. economic mobility in the u.s. is low compared to what it was in times past and with current levels in many european countries in canada. you hear all about rags to riches stories, but they are the exceptions. a comprehensive study by the pew economic mobility documents that in the u.s. today few poor people become even upper middle class. now, some of the criticism of president obama's program has come from people who worry about the government's track record in the area of early childhood education. they point to head start, the long-standing program that provides this education to disadvantaged children. the department of health and human services released a study of head start in 2010 which was updated in 2012 that positive effects begin to fade in a few years. this has led many to call the program a failure and urged the government not to throw good money after bad. people are jumping to conclusions about a very complicated subject without understanding the study or social science research. three scholars from the university of chicago and university of
with the u.s. government not paying interest on its debt, then god knows what would have happened. this is not like that. this is something where the negative effects kick in gradually. the world won't end if we go a month into this thing, so he can afford to wait, where i believe the republicans will have to cave eventually. what he should be looking for is i think some face-saving way for everybody to just kick this can down the road. we could have some vague spending cuts promised in the future, some real revenue sources. >> all in the future. >> all in the future. this is a terrible time to do us a terry. >> i think his reaction depends on whether or not the republicans can hold their coalition together. and if they can create a coalition that holds together, which might even include some democrats, i think they can prevail on this issue and get a small amount of cost reduction. i think if they shy away from -- >> do you want to see some us a terry now? >> they have to demonstrate some ability to manage the costs over the long run if you want to see the private sector grow as
, but will place a band aid on america's growing cancer of failing intrastructure. a 2009 study of u.s. infrastructure by the american society of civil engineers concluded that we need $2.2 trillion to be spent over five years to bring the nation's roads, bridges, railway tracks, airports and associated systems up to grade. let me make three crucial points. first, this is the big bang. it would be the most effective way to create good jobs. unemployment in the construction industry is among the nation's highest. around 16%. the private sector is still not investing much in construction. second, it's cheap. the federal government's borrowing costs today are lower than they are ever likely to be, again. deferring maintenance is not fiscal prudence. when your boiler explodes, it costs more than it would had you just spent the money keeping it in good functioning order. we need to spend that money now. third, this is an area where the federal government has always had a big role, one that republicans have long embraced. in 1930, even as herbert hoover was trying to balance the federal budg
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)